There can be little doubt that citizens and people with visas, green cards, etc. have a legal right to reside in a country. But when it comes to illegal immigration, at which point has the illegal immigrant crossed over from "don't have a right to be here" to "DO have a right to be here?"

(Not a thread about illegal immigration in general, only about this one thing in particular..)

Most people on the political spectrum would probably say that someone who just crossed the border illegally at El Paso or disembarked from a ship illegally at Sicily doesn't have the right to be in their new country - otherwise, everyone has a right to be anywhere as soon as they cross a border, and then borders might as well not exist. But if that migrant stays there for years, undercover, have they gradually established more and more of a basis for "right to reside?"

Never.
It is a Nation-States privilege to decide who can and cannot reside within its borders. Otherwise, its not a Nation-State, its a jumped up province or municipality.

Please note, the difference between law and policy here is stark. While law should leave complete discretion to the country, it as a matter of policy will often be better served by having at least a soft border, if not an open one. On balance that's an advantage as it attracts talent and highly successful polities have typically been ones with inclusive tendencies. The Romans, the Arab Caliphate, the Ottomans Turks, the US etc. These two things should not be confused.

Whenever they move there, presuming they are not fleeing felons (exceptions made for political refugees), foreign spies or an invading/occupying force. In other words, the exact same point that a citizen of California has the right to reside in Illinois. It shouldn't be illegal to move.

Certainly not, but as I understand the OP, this is about the concept of human rights.

No criminal record (being in a country illegally is a civil offense, not a crime). Gainfully employed. Ties to the community, including school-age children or volunteer work. Possibly not participating in "chain migration." After ten years or so, you're good to stay. It might be legally cumbersome, but I'm OK with giving a green card but not allowing naturalization.

It really is a matter of property rights. Individuals have a right to person and property. If an “immigrant” is located on property where the owner has no qualms with his presence, the government should have no right to “deport” him any more than warlords have a right to kidnap him.

“Publicly” owned land is not owned legitimately. The legitimate owners of this property should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and then the rightful owners can decide who can exist on the land.

I suspect the vast majority of “illegal” immigrants reside, work, and otherwise exist on land legitimately.

The illegal immigrant has no right to exercise government privileges such as voting, welfare benefits, etc. Similarly, legal immigrants and lifetime residents have no such right to these privileges, but politically it is more difficult to revoke these privileges from non-illegals. This is a very minor issue for me. I don’t think immigrants move to the US to vote Democratic and collect welfare, but I’m sure some try to get some of the benefits like good Americans.

A hardcore libertarian policy position would be to increase illegal immigration and hopelfully with that, tax evasion. A second-best solution would be a variation on various guest worker schemes.

The length of time a person spends within the bounds of government jurisdiction is irrelevant to the matter of rights.

In the early 2000s Nigerians were recruited to work in low paid jobs in Britain (as staff of care homes, sheltered housing schemes, etc.). After 5 years they could become British Citizens and were free to take any job they wished. A Metropolitan Police internet page claimed that this scheme was being used by Nigerian criminals to settle in Britain.

This guy's wife visited the Sheltered Housing Scheme I lived in in London and spoke to the Nigerian staff there ... after her visit they became extremely dominant towards me and some other residents. Ibori had a house nearby. What was going on I don't know ... but I'm sure it wasn't legal. I eventually abandoned my flat and most of my possessions and moved out if London

Nonsense. That's as silly as saying that a corporation cannot own property.

No it isnít. Governments canít own property legitimately not because they are organizations, but because they acquire property through violent expropriation instead of voluntary exchange or homesteading. Corporations do not deploy violence to acquire property. If they do, the facts of the matter are settled in a court.

You can kind of see why Norway is cool with anyone (generally Russians) settling in Svaldbard.

Quote:

The Svalbard Treaty of 1920 established full Norwegian sovereignty over the archipelago. The islands are, unlike the Norwegian Antarctic Territory, a part of the Kingdom of Norway and not a dependency. The treaty came into effect in 1925, following the Svalbard Act. All forty signatory countries of the treaty have the right to conduct commercial activities on the archipelago without discrimination, although all activity is subject to Norwegian legislation. The treaty limits Norway's right to collect taxes to that of financing services on Svalbard. Therefore, Svalbard has a lower income tax than mainland Norway, and there is no value added tax. There is a separate budget for Svalbard to ensure compliance. Svalbard is a demilitarized zone, as the treaty prohibits the establishment of military installations. Norwegian military activity is limited to fishery surveillance by the Norwegian Coast Guard as the treaty requires Norway to protect the natural environment.[6][74]

The Svalbard Act established the institution of the Governor of Svalbard (Norwegian: Sysselmannen), who holds the responsibility as both county governor and chief of police, as well as holding other authority granted from the executive branch. Duties include environmental policy, family law, law enforcement, search and rescue, tourism management, information services, contact with foreign settlements, and judge in some areas of maritime inquiries and judicial examinationsóalbeit never in the same cases as acting as police.[75][76] Since 2015, Kjerstin Askholt has been governor; she is assisted by a staff of 26 professionals. The institution is subordinate to the Ministry of Justice and the Police, but reports to other ministries in matters within their portfolio.[77]

Quote:

Although Norway is part of the European Economic Area (EEA) and the Schengen Agreement, Svalbard is not part of the Schengen Area or the EEA.[81] Non-EU and non-Nordic Svalbard residents do not need Schengen visas, but are prohibited from reaching Svalbard from mainland Norway without such. In theory it would be possible to do a visa-free airport transit at Oslo Airport, but this is not allowed by Norway. People without a source of income can be rejected by the governor.[82] No person is required to have a visa or residence permit for Svalbard. Everybody can live and work in Svalbard indefinitely regardless of citizenship. Svalbard Treaty grants treaty nationals equal right of abode as Norwegian nationals. So far, non-treaty nationals were admitted visa-free as well. "Regulations concerning rejection and expulsion from Svalbard" in force.[83][84] Russia retains a consulate in Barentsburg.[85]

In September 2010 a treaty was made between Russia and Norway fixing the boundary between the Svalbard archipelago and the Novaya Zemlya archipelago. Increased interest in petroleum exploration in the Arctic raised interest in a resolution of the dispute. The agreement takes into account the relative positions of the archipelagos, rather than being based simply on northward extension of the continental border of Norway and Russia.[86]

I don't think this is applicable to, oh, say the US as a whole. Or even the rest of Norway...

No it isnít. Governments canít own property legitimately not because they are organizations, but because they acquire property through violent expropriation instead of voluntary exchange or homesteading. Corporations do not deploy violence to acquire property. If they do, the facts of the matter are settled in a court.

Your opinion is duly noted. As is the case in all countries, it is rejected as being inconsistent with accepted norms.

As for the basic question, it appears to me that the question is asking whether or not the concept of adverse possession should be applied to issues of residency. That is, if I manage to avoid deportation, or if I am legally present in a country I am not a citizen of, is there some point at which my adverse residency must be given legal status as a basic right of my humanity?

I think that's not going to be an accepted position of any country. One of the basic ideas of nationhood (as noted upthread by AK84 is that nations get to establish the rules by which you can enter and reside. We can get into a discussion of whether or not a nation has the right to terminate citizenship, but I don't think any nation will give up the right to terminate legal residency, and certainly not the right to reject those resident without permission.

Out of curiosity, does the OP have any rationale for why a "right" to remain in a country you have resided in for a period of time should exist?

Most people on the political spectrum would probably say that someone who just crossed the border illegally at El Paso or disembarked from a ship illegally at Sicily doesn't have the right to be in their new country - otherwise, everyone has a right to be anywhere as soon as they cross a border, and then borders might as well not exist. But if that migrant stays there for years, undercover, have they gradually established more and more of a basis for "right to reside?"

No, I donít see that it becomes any less wrong just because they do more of it.

Never.
It is a Nation-States privilege to decide who can and cannot reside within its borders. Otherwise, its not a Nation-State, its a jumped up province or municipality.

Well, yes, on one level.

But on another level we need to dig a bit deeper. Suppose a nation-state enacts a law saying that, e.g., Jews are stripped of citizenship or any other status they may possess which permits residence, and therefore have no right to reside in the country. If we see rights as purely the outcome of positive law, then these Jews now have no right to reside in the country. But if we see rights as moral claims antecedent to positive law, and as standards against which positive law can be judged, then we would probably say that this Jews do have a right to reside in the country, and the recently-enacted law can be criticised for infringing that right.

You can apply exactly the same analysis to laws dealing with rights of residence for people who have migrated into the country. You can argue that when people have formed attachments, put down roots, made a contribution to society, etc for long enough, they have a moral claim to be allowed to continue to participate in the community of which they are now members, and the community has a moral obligation not to exclude them from doing so. And it's the boundaries of that moral claim which the OP invites exploration of.

That's impossible in many cases. There is no legal avenue, for example, for an average Mexican to legally immigrate to the United States. The same is true for people who want to immigrate to America from China, India, the Philippines, and a number of other countries.

Never.
It is a Nation-States privilege to decide who can and cannot reside within its borders. Otherwise, its not a Nation-State, its a jumped up province or municipality.

Quote:

Yes.

It is a Nation-State's privilege to decide who can and cannot reside within its borders. Otherwise, it's not a Nation-State, it's a jumped up province or municipality.

Both statements are equally true.

My point is that a country can establish any law it likes in regards to immigration and citizenship. Saying that nobody has a right to become a citizen because the law doesn't give them that right is begging the question. Change the law and you've established the right. You can't argue that something should be illegal because it's against the law.

No it isn’t. Governments can’t own property legitimately not because they are organizations, but because they acquire property through violent expropriation instead of voluntary exchange or homesteading.

Not always; they can also acquire it due to lack of claimants or, in the case of monarchies, the personal property of a lord (who did not necessarily acquire it through violent means*) becomes the country.

* Very often when there is a mess whomever acts like he knows what to do (that is, the first person to start giving orders that are not completely imbecilic) is instantly In Charge. If that was solved satisfactorily, people start coming to that person for advice. Eventually that's the person who gets people brought to when a traveler says "bring me to your leader". One of the roots of the feudal system was the recognition of people like this; it wasn't always (like people tend to think) conquest or royal appointment.

__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

The legal steps thing can be enormously difficult for refugees. If your house was in flames, would you stop to pick up your diplomas? If you spend seven years in five refugee camps in countries bordering yours, where do you get those diplomas certified by your country's ministry of education? Many of the refugees currently in Europe are educated people who in peacetime would have been able to immigrate directly to our middle or upper-middle classes, but who right now don't have a way to prove that they're more than a pair of hands because the procedure for that is completely paper-based; any merits-based procedures are closed to them. Some countries have been better at finding alternate ways through this (Germany) than others (I'm looking at us, Spain).

__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Not when they committed the original sin of violating our laws. This doesn't mean I oppose amnesty, just that it isn't "deserved" or "earned". Much like Christians believe in salvation it's a gift from us to them that they did nothing to earn and could have never done anything to earn.

As for the OP, the answer is obvious and there is only one: voters have an absolute right to decide who is a citizen, who is a permanent resident, who can stay temporarily, and who can't come at all.

You meant to say "you are still residing illegally"? A person can not be illegal.

This is a fair point that is often made, but it's not nearly as clever as its proponents think. People ARE illegal in terms of being illegal residents, illegal workers, etc. And what do you do with people who are illegal? Do you punish them? Jail them? No, you put them where they are legally supposed to be.

Now if we're conceding that these people are committing an illegal act, then that changes things, but not in a way you'd probably like.

But on another level we need to dig a bit deeper. Suppose a nation-state enacts a law saying that, e.g., Jews are stripped of citizenship or any other status they may possess which permits residence, and therefore have no right to reside in the country. If we see rights as purely the outcome of positive law, then these Jews now have no right to reside in the country. But if we see rights as moral claims antecedent to positive law, and as standards against which positive law can be judged, then we would probably say that this Jews do have a right to reside in the country, and the recently-enacted law can be criticised for infringing that right.

You can apply exactly the same analysis to laws dealing with rights of residence for people who have migrated into the country. You can argue that when people have formed attachments, put down roots, made a contribution to society, etc for long enough, they have a moral claim to be allowed to continue to participate in the community of which they are now members, and the community has a moral obligation not to exclude them from doing so. And it's the boundaries of that moral claim which the OP invites exploration of.

I think current law already gets that right. If you come here illegally, you will never be safe. Your children, however, who you gave birth to here, are citizens. We hold the people who commit crimes responsible. Not their descendants.

No it isnít. Governments canít own property legitimately not because they are organizations, but because they acquire property through violent expropriation instead of voluntary exchange or homesteading. Corporations do not deploy violence to acquire property. If they do, the facts of the matter are settled in a court.

Almost all land on Earth that is owned by anybody, be it a private person, corporation, or government, was acquired through violence and/or theft if you go back far enough.

A hardcore libertarian policy position would be to increase illegal immigration and hopelfully with that, tax evasion. A second-best solution would be a variation on various guest worker schemes.

That's a milquetoast liberal position in a world where right-libertarians argue that open borders are an assault on private property. A hardcore position is that immigrants, feminists, socialists, and other collectivists must be purged to establish and protect a right-libertarian society. Reading the more vicious tendencies in the movement is interesting because they seemed to have, quite by accident, re-invented and argue old leftist topics such as the vanguard party, dekulakization, dictatorship of the proletariat, and socialism/libertarianism in one country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gatorslap

Almost all land on Earth that is owned by anybody, be it a private person, corporation, or government, was acquired through violence and/or theft if you go back far enough.

Yeah, private property relations requires state violence to maintain. When the European explorers set out they didn't find the world dotted with ancap tribes.

This is a fair point that is often made, but it's not nearly as clever as its proponents think. People ARE illegal in terms of being illegal residents, illegal workers, etc. And what do you do with people who are illegal? Do you punish them? Jail them? No, you put them where they are legally supposed to be.

Now if we're conceding that these people are committing an illegal act, then that changes things, but not in a way you'd probably like.

But your sole objection to them being here is that they entered the country illegally? If that law was changed and they were able to enter the country legally, you'd have no problem with those same people residing and living in the United States?

I don't really have much of an opinion on what our immigration laws should be. I lean towards lots of immigration, as I think it makes our country stronger as long as we aren't spending money on people en masse with Medicaid and food stamps. The reason why it's not really something on the table is that first, the public wants less immigration, not more:

So we should maintain current OFFICIAL immigration levels, while reordering our priorities to meet demand a little better, and also our country's needs. And between E-verify and enough agents and courts, we can make sure we never have millions of illegal immigrants again.

In other words, my objection has little to do with the immigrants themselves and more to do with mass disrespect for our laws and politicians who believe the public needs to be lied to for our own good.

Exactly. I think that most Americans would probably be cool with a very liberal immigration policy if that meant that those who weren't allowed in were actually kicked out fairly reliably. A lot of the resentment and hard lines come from the fact that not only is the law not enforced, but many people who have immigrated illegally think they are entitled to stay. While the suckers wait in line.

So ironically, by lying to the public about what our immigration policy is on paper, they created mass anger and backlash against what our immigration policy actually is in reality. Funny thing about paper though: it's the law, which means Trump needs no money, no Congressional approval, no permission from judges, to clamp down hard on illegal immigration. Because his supposedly cruel, racist policy is actually what the law IS.

I don't really have much of an opinion on what our immigration laws should be. I lean towards lots of immigration, as I think it makes our country stronger as long as we aren't spending money on people en masse with Medicaid and food stamps. The reason why it's not really something on the table is that first, the public wants less immigration, not more:

So we should maintain current OFFICIAL immigration levels, while reordering our priorities to meet demand a little better, and also our country's needs. And between E-verify and enough agents and courts, we can make sure we never have millions of illegal immigrants again.

In other words, my objection has little to do with the immigrants themselves and more to do with mass disrespect for our laws and politicians who believe the public needs to be lied to for our own good.

Well dispensing with the OP’s fiction that the question is about all countries not just the US, my outsiders perspective is that the US public seems to want very tough laws, however it’s ambivalent about it’s enforcement preferring loose or selective application.

“Tough on immigration”, is like “tough on crime” or “zero tolerance”, a lot easier and popular to legislate than implement.

ETA: just saw your above post. Think it’s accurate, except that while most people would be fine (and not just in US here) with reletivley free movement of persons, the loudest voice won’t be, and they have outsized influence.

I think a lot of the problem is illegal immigrants. If they were legal immigrants instead, a lot of problems go away, such as reluctance to report crime, working under the table, identity theft, driving without licenses or insurance, etc. But you can't just amnesty everyone without better internal enforcement because then you just end up with the same problem as before. You've just legalized several million, but you still have several million illegals too, so the same problems remain.

Taking the OPs question as a request for an "ought" I find that I have no clear cut opinion. I think laws should recognise a right to reside in a country somewhere on the line between:

"Entered the country illegally as an adult and have spent the entire time as a violent criminal."

and

"Had no choice in entering the country (brought in as a minor), has participated in normal society as best they can and has limited legal and/or personal ties to country of purported origin."

I also think that the tacit approval in many US industries of extensive use of low cost non-legal-resident labor puts a duty on the country to not make abrupt changes disfavoring groups who've overall contributed their share to the economy.

No it isnít. Governments canít own property legitimately not because they are organizations, but because they acquire property through violent expropriation instead of voluntary exchange or homesteading.

What about the Louisiana purchase or when the US bought Alaksa. Wouldn't that be legitimate in your eyes, given they involved a voluntary exchange and no violence?

I asked this question because there are mostly two schools of thought on illegal immigration:

1) The first, if perhaps heartless, approach is simple and clear-cut: "If you are an illegal immigrant, you have no right to be here and should be deported." Sure, there are many hypocrites, such as people who will decry this in public but hire illegal housekeepers or gardening workers in secret, but at least the argument is simple and consistent.

2) The second group is sort of hemming and hawing - "Well, it's technically illegal, but we shouldn't treat it as illegal, and these people technically don't have a right to be here, but since they've resided here a while and also are trying to make a better life and future for themselves, they also sort of do have a right to be here." A yes but not yes, no but not no logic.

Let's clarify one point. There's no such thing as an illegal resident. We have a law against entering the country without proper authorization. But the crime occurs at the time and place where the person crossed the border. Nobody is committing a crime simply by living in the United States.

Let's use two people as examples, Bob and Joe. Bob stole a car back in 2003. Joe crossed the border illegally in 2003. Neither man has broken any laws since 2003. We should not act like Joe has been on a fifteen year crime spree.

We should treat Joe the way we treat Bob. Yes, they both committed a crime fifteen years ago and they should be appropriately punished. But there should be some acknowledgment for the crime-free years that have passed since the crime occurred. Make them pay a large fine, give them several hundred hours of community service, maybe even put them in jail for thirty days. And then let it go; they were punished for the crime they committed fifteen years and now they can go back to the normal lives they've been living since 2003.

This question raises the difference between legal and equitable concerns.

Certainly, at law, in most jurisdictions it doesn't matter how long a person residing in a country illegally has been there.

The question though is whether it should matter - because after a certain point, it may be more disruptive to society as a whole to have a person residing illegally deported, than to somehow regularize their situation.

Problem is the concern that such a rule would basically encourage law-breaking. A similar concern is raised by limitation periods - that if you 'get away' with an offence for so long, you effectively 'get away' with it forever.

Let's clarify one point. There's no such thing as an illegal resident. We have a law against entering the country without proper authorization. But the crime occurs at the time and place where the person crossed the border. Nobody is committing a crime simply by living in the United States.

The word "illegal" is not synonymous with "criminal." It is correct to assert that it is not a crime to reside in the US without proper permission. The penalties for such residence are civil in nature (deportation and bar on re-entry), not criminal (jail, etc.). But being in the country without proper permission violates the law (which is why there are civil penalties for it). Thus, it is illegal to reside here without permission.

It is, therefore, correct to say that someone is illegally residing in the country. It is, of course, not completely correct to say that they are an "illegal" resident, since acts are illegal, not people. But trying to assert that they are not doing anything "illegal" by being here without proper permission is an incorrect statement.

ST's vBulletin 3 Responsive Styles

Our newly refreshed styles in 2017, brings the old vb3 to the new level, responsive and modern feel. It comes with 3 colors with or without sidebar, fixed sized or fluid. Default vbulletin 3 style made responsive also available in the pack.
Purchase Our Style Pack Now